Yeah because all we had at the time was one claim by a person with a documented anti-LGBTQ agenda before this happened and a video which somehow managed to not include the alleged perpetrator. That you'd lump incomplete reporting based on fragmentary evidence in with "fake news" aka deliberately false or misleading propaganda shows you aren't addressing this in good faith at all.
So much wrong packed into such a short message. Let's have a closer look.
Yeah because all we had at the time was one claim
"We don't have any solid information so let's publish some unsourced speculation" is probably not something you'd hear in a credible news room.
The "hoax" claim in the headline of the Slate article you posted was based entirely on comments from an internet message board called "TransSafety.net" plus a post from the Los Angeles Blade which itself was based on more internet speculation and a claim from a make-believe source within the LAPD.
The Slate story you linked to, The Daily Beast, The Washington Post, The Guardian, The Insider (and possibly other popular "progressive" sites like Vice, Daily Dot, and Vox) all decided to amplify these baseless claims because it fit the narrative they liked. It "fit their priors" to borrow your phrase.
by a person with a documented anti-LGBTQ agenda before this happened
cite? As far as I know her alleged "anti-LGBTQ" agenda consists of belonging to an evangelical church.
and a video which somehow managed to not include the alleged perpetrator.
It's funny to me that you and the super-sleuths of Trans social media are mystified as to why she stopped recording before she entered the
**** AREA of the spa.
That you'd lump incomplete reporting based on fragmentary evidence in with "fake news" aka deliberately false or misleading propaganda
"Incomplete reporting based on fragmentary evidence" is an incredibly generous description. A more accurate description would be "agenda-driven reporting based on unsubstantiated claims."
If they had any intention of doing real reporting on this story, these outlets would have reported that a suspect had been named and a warrant had been issued. They didn't. Of all these outfits, The Guardian was the only one who published a new article after a warrant was issued for the arrest of Darren Merager (before immediately doubling down on "the transes are the real victims in all of this.") Your Slate article was updated with a footnote acknowledging that a warrant had been issued. Washington Post and Insider were completely silent. The Daily Beast didn't just stay silent, they also deleted their earlier story.
Trying to spin this as "incomplete reporting" is laughable because they had no intention of providing more complete reporting when the truth emerged. They made two extremely slanted decisions. First they published stories pushing this hoax narrative based on the flimsiest possible information. Second when real actual facts emerged they declined to post the update and let their "progressive" readers go on assuming the hoax claim was the end of it.
In short: they published the initial "hoax" claims because it was a narrative they liked, and they dropped the story when it stopped fitting a narrative they liked.
The result is that people like yourself spread this story around social media, without ever hearing the update. I doubt that you heard that they charged a suspect until I held the story under your nose. I doubt that people who helped spread this "hoax" allegation on their social media did anything to spread the truth once it emerged, even if they did learn the truth.
This is no different than some outfit like Fox (or Rebel Media or whatever) publishing some inflammatory junk about Obama and then posting a brief retraction a few days later in a time-slot when nobody is watching. But you're willing to make excuses for it in this case, because the false narrative being peddled is one that you support.
shows you aren't addressing this in good faith at all.
Good faith is certainly not coming from the side that pushed this "it's a hoax" narrative vociferously and then vanished into the woodwork when a suspect was named and charged.
-k